<^i^t 



INCREASE OE THE AEMY. 



SPEECH -p 



OF 



HON. JOHN ArBINGHAM, OF OHIO, 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 17, 1858. 




The House having under consideration the bill to provide 
lor the organization of a regiment of mounted volunteers 
for the defense of the frontier of Texas, and to authorize 
llie President to call into the service of the United Stales 
four additional regiments of volunteers — ^ 

Mr. BINGHAM said: 

Mr. Speaker: I have no desire to protract this 
debate untiecessarily; but, as at present advised, 
I shall cast my vote against the bill offered by the 
majority of the Committee on Military Affairs, as 
also against the substitute proposed by the hon- 
orable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Faulkner.] 
Ami I desire, inasmuch as my vote shall be so re- 
corded, to state, as briefly as I may, some of the 
reasons that will control that vote. 

It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary 
of War has said enough to determine me, at least, 
in my opposition to the bill reported by the ma- 
jority of the committee. The President of the 
United States is, under the Constitution, charged 
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. 
It is his business to advise this House, by his 
message, and through the proper Departments, 
not only of the measures which are needful to 
the execution of the laws; but also of the meas- 
ures the cheapest and most efficient to that end. 
The American people have a right to demand not 
onlyan efficient administration, butan economical 
execution of the laws. I take it that no gentle- 
man on this side of the Chamber, or on that side 
of the Chamber, will be swift in objecting to that 
proposition. 

Well, sir, the President'of the United States, 
in the proper discharge of his duties through the 
channel of the War Department, has advised us 
officially, and has officially advised the country, 
against the very bill which the majority of the 
Military Committee are now pressing upon the 
consideration of the House. The bill reported by 
the majority of the committee, as the House has 
been advised, is a bill temporarily to increase the 
Army of the United States, by a volunteer force 
of some four thousand men. That project is 
condemned by the Administration, notwithstand- 
ing the ingenious attempt of the gentleman from 



lov/a, [Mr. Curtis,] the otherday, to throw the 
weight of the Administration in favor of this bill. 
I undertake to say that the bill is condemned, 
emphatically condemned, by the Administra- 
tion. 

Mr. CURTIS. I wish to correct the gentle- 
man. I am not at all certain that the Adminis- 
tration is in favor of this bill, and I did not in- 
tend to assert that it was. What I said was that 
the Administration asked us to authorize the 
raising of four or five additional regiments, and 
did not say of what character of troops. But I 
did not say the Administration favored the vol- 
unteers. On the contrary, I am afraid they are 
not right on this question. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I have no disposition to 
misstate the argument of my friend from Iowa; 
but, sir, I attended very carefully to what he said 
at the time when he addressed the House, and I 
am certain that I am not mistaken in saying that 
he sought to press the Administration into' his 
service in the advocacy of this bill; because his 
reported speech, corrected by himself, states that 
the President is entirely silent as to the description 
of troops that he wants ! The gentleman from 
Iowa argues, from this alleged silence of the Pres- 
ident, that the Administration is not opposed to 
the bill reported by the majority of the Committee 
on Military Affairs. The gentleman from Iowa 
was right, so far as the President's message was 
concerned, in saying the President was silent as 
to the character of the troops. But the President 
has further advised us on the subject through the 
Secretary of War; and by looking to the official 
report of that officer you will find that he ex- 
pressly condemns the project which is recom- 
mended in the bill of the majority now before the 
House. The Secretary says: 

" It will not he denied that an army properly organized 
and of sufficient strength, constitutes at once the cheapest 
and most efiicient means by which the indispensable serv- 
ices it is designed to perform can be secured by the Gov- 
ernment." 

That is the general proposition; and it would 
seem, from what follows, that the Secretary of 
War designed that the attention of Congress 



I k 'ft 






/' 






I , , , jcially called to it, in anticipation 
f, "7, for some kindred measure, would be 
umi iiiiso^ Congress. The Secretary further 
presentet' ^ ^ 

says: 

. , .il bP 8crn Troiii a paper ciiTefitUy prepared in tlic 
^ "if thp Adjiil.-iiit tJiiii-ral, that m> iiivrcase of forces is 
** .?ru iK.NT OR .NtAR so ciiEAi- u-s tlie aiignicnlalioii of 
'It regular Areiiy." 

Now, sir, if the Secretary of War be right in 
this, it is very apparent that the majority of the 
committee was wrong, aliogeilu'r wrong, in rec- 
ommending this bill to the House at all. 

Efficiency and cluapncss in any increase of the 
Army, whether that increase be pcrinanent or 
temporary, ought not to be lost sight of. The 
opinion of the Secretary of War condemns the 
jiroposed measure of the majority because it lacks 
efficiency and economy. 

Mr. CURTIS. The gentleman has the opinion 
of the Secretary of War as to his belief against 
that of the conimittee. Tiiat is true. lUit 1 would 
not give the opinion of the romniiilee for that of 
three such Secretaries of War upon the subject of 
efficiency and econon)y, because he has not had 
as much experience as three or four of the mem- 
bftss of the committee. I say this with due re- 
spect to the Secretary of War. 

Mr. BINGH.VM. The gentleman from Iowa 
is mistaken if he supposes that I undertake to 
hold the scales of justice here in any judgment to 
be passed upon the comparative ability — the com- 
parative military ability, if you please — of the Sec- 
retary of War and the honorable gentlemen who 
compose the Military Committee of this House. 
I am perfectly willing that that grave question 
shall be settled elsewhere and by a different tri- 
bunal. I am willing to leave that important ques- 
tion for settlement to the calm, dispassionate judg- 
ment of the future historian. At all events, sir, I 
respectfully decline the office of arbiter or judge 
upon the relative merits of the military achieve- 
ments and experience of the honorable three to 
whom the gentleman refers, and the military 
jichifevements and experience of the Secretary of 
War. 

Mr. CLEMENS. I desire to ask the gentle- 
man from Iowa a quf stioji. I believe the gentle- 
man was in command of a volunteer force in the 
Mexican war .' 

Mr. CURTIS n.ssented. 

Mr. CLEMENS. Will he be kind enough 
to tell me of any civilian in this country who has 
hapiiened to have command of a volunteer force 
in any war, who did not, through his self-pride, 
prefer the force he commanded, and contend that 
It was su|H-rior to a regular force .' We have vol- 
unteer gentlemen on the Military Committee, and 
they, forsooth, an- lietter judges of what the mili- 
tary defense of the country requires ihun the offi- 
cers of the regular Army ! 

Mr. f:nRTI.S. I will say that I do not think 
JIO. I do not think the volunteers claim to be bel- 
ter soldi' TK, but th'-y always claim to be equal to 
the regular forces. 

Mr. UUrr.MAN. The modesty of the gentle- 
man from luwu ^>«ji pnvinted hiin from stating 
that he was educated ai WeiH Point as an officer 
of the reguliir Army, uiiU 1 believe that before the 



close of the war he commanded a regiment of reg- 
ulars. 

Mr. CURTIS. No, sir. 

Mr. ClUITMAN. At any rate, he was regu- 
larly educated to the military profession. 

Mr. SAVAGE. I think it quite unfortunate 
that this comparison should be made. It devolves 
upon me now, however, to answer also as to my 
position. In the late war with Mexico I belonged 
to the regular branch of the service. I had the 
honor first of being a major in the fourteenth divi- 
sion, and of being at Mulino del Rey a lieutenant 
colonel in the eleventh divLsion. Prior to that 
time, many years ago, I had been a very high 
private: and that is the sum of my experience. 

Mr. CLEMENS. I understand this to be a 
qiicslion between the military department of this 
Government and certain gentlemen of the Com- 
mittee on Military Affairs. I desire to know from 
the gentleman from Mississippi, how many other 
members of the Military Commiuee who have 
reported against the plan recommended Ity the De- 
partment for the increase of the Army, happened 
to be educated at "^est Point.' I would like to 
know whether the whole of them, with the ex- 
ception perhaps of the gentlemen from Iowa, were 
not in command of volunteers in the last war, and 
whether whatever military reputation they have 
has not been derived from that war, and that war 
alone .' 

Mr. ClUITMAN. If I am permitted, I will 
answer the gentleman. I will say that 1 believe 
that two members of the committee were educa- 
ted at West Point for the profession of a soldier, 
and that four have commanded regulars. As the 
gentleman appears to be unacquainted with ^ly 

poor military history 

Mr. CLEMENS. I beg the gentleman's par- 
don. I am familiar with it, and the country is 
familiar with the great deeds it sets forth. 

Mr. Q.UITMAN. I, ofcoursc,asa majorgen- 
eral, belonged to the regular service of the United 
States. I trust that I have never sliown any hos- 
tility to that service. 1 do not regard tliis as a 
controversy between gentlemen, Init as a contro- 
versy as to the great powers of this Government. 
I felt it to be my duty, as a member of Congress, 
to advocate what I believe the country wants — a 
temporary increase of its military force. The high 
duty is devolved upon Congress of raising, organ- 
izing, and equipping armies. For doing this, the 
responsibility rests with us; and wc are not to be 
jud";ed by the opinion of the Secretary of War, 
or tne President, or anybody else, in the dis- 
charge of that duty. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I agree with the gentleman 
from Mississippi. Every member, in his official 
action on this (lueslion, as upon all other ques- 
tions, should be governed by what, in his judg- 
ment, is needful and right and just in the prem- 
ises, irrespective of any opinion of the Secretary 
of War or any executive officer. But, sir, when 
: I made the remark which I did, it unexpectedly 
called from my friend from Iowa [Mr. Curtis] 
I a comparison of the military qualifications of the 
Secretary of War and the honorable gi'iitlemen of 
tlve Committee on Military Affairs of thisHouse. 
It was furthest from my purpose to make any 



^ 



siig'i2;estion to the g'ontlemen that they ous^ht to be 
controlled in the discharge of their official duty 
here by the mere dictum of the Secretary of War. 
I wished to have this condict of opinion under- 
stood. I thought I spoke plainly enougli. By 
the Constitution of the United States, the exec- 
utive department of this Government is especially 
charged with the execution of the laws ot the Uni- 
ted States. In time of peace, the Army of the 
United States is kept organized chiefly, if not 
exclusively, to enable the President to discharge 
that duty. If, therefore, any increase of the 
Army of tiie United States, either temporarily 
or permanently, be needful in this time of pro- 
found peace, (for it is a time of profound jieace 
between the United States Government and all 
foreign nations,) it is for the President, above all 
./ others, to know it, and to bring that fact before 
d Congress; and also to suggest and recommend 
}h such necessary increase, as well as the kind of 
force required. I say that the incrfnse of the Army 
'^J is an Administration measure. If an increase liad 
Ci-, not been recommended by the President, does 
5^ anybody suppose that this House would, upon 
Q£> its own motion, have proceeded to increase the 
Army of the United States.' I think not. The 
remarks which I have sul^mitted upon the kind 
of forces recommended would not have been in- 
dulged in by me at all, if one of the members of 
the committee had not attempted, as I understood 
him, to press the weight of the Administration 
into the support of this bill. In answer to that 
attempt I thought it perfectly legitimate to pre- 
sent to the House the fact that this bill stands con- 
demned by the war officer of the Government. 

I do not know whether this ought to have 
weight with other gentlemen. In my view of the 
suliject, I allow it to have weight with me. I 
shall vote for no increase of the Army, as at 
present advised. I will hold the Administration 
responsible for any increase that may be made. 
Unless the Administration needs an increase of 
the Army, it ought not to have it; and unless it 
asks it, it ought not to g8.tit. The Administra- 
tion has taken particular pains to condemn this 
bill. It has said in exp'ress terms, through its 
war officers, that the increase of the regulai-Anny 
is the most efficient and least expensive to the 
country. I state this that it may have its due 
weight with the House and the country. 

Mr. aUlTMAN. Will the gentleman allow 
me to ask him a question? It seems to me that 
we differ as to our duty as members of Congress. 
We have before us the application of the Legis- 
lature of the State of Texas, and that is reported 
on in a part of this bill. We have, also, advices 
from General Twiggs that the Indians are com- 
mitting depredations on the frontier. This was 
brought directly before us from the Legislature 
of Texas. I ask the gentleman whether he would 
refuse to act upon it, although he might believe 
some additional fovce was required for the defense 
of Texas, or wait to act upon it until he received 
a recommendation from the Administration.' 

Mr. BINGHAM. lam greatly obliged to the 
gentleman for -his suggestion. He will observe 
that in my remarks, 1 used the words " as at pres- 
ent advised." The case of Texas had entirely 



escaped my mind at the moment. The truth is, 
that in the remarks I have been making, I was 
directing my attention especially to that: section 
of the bill which provides four additional regi- 
ments of volunteers temporarily to be employed, 
not in Texas, but in Utah and the northwestern 
frontier. 1 had not in my mind the application 
of the State of Texas. I am ready to respond to 
the suggestion of the gentleman from Mississippi. 
On the petition of the State of Texas, setting forth 
that additional force was necessary for the protec- 
tion of life and property in that State, and being 
satisfied that such force was necessary, I trust I 
would be as ready as the gentleman from Missis- 
sippi to vote that additional force. I shall come 
to that part of my argument presently, which 
covers the application of Texas, and that section 
of the bill which provides for volunteers forTexas. 

Allow me to remark, in passing, that the lan- 
guage of the Secretary of War, ^lich I have quoted 
in condemnation of the provi^ns of this bill for 
raising four additional regiments, applies with 
equal force to the first section, which provides for 
raising one regiment of volunteers forTexas. My 
chief objection to this bill does not originate in 
the report of the Secretary of War by any means, 
and applies alike to the bill reported by the ma- 
jority and the substitute proposed by the honor- 
able gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Faulkner.] 
That objection is, that I am not advised of any 
condition of things in Texas, in Utah, or any- 
where else within the limits of the United States, 
which renders it necessartj that there should be 
any increase of the Army, either temporarily or 
permanently, either by means of volunteer regi- 
ments or by means of regulars. Until that neces- 
sity is made apparent, I shall vote for no increase 
of the Army. 

It is well understood and conceded on all sides 
of the House, that the Army of the United States 
numbers some fifteen thousand efficient men, and 
liable to be inci-eased, I believe, by addition of re- 
cruits, to eighteen thousand, under the existing 
laws. How is this force employed at present.' In 
the eastern department, I believe, there are only 
about eight hundred of them; in Florida there is 
only a small number — not to exceed a thousand. 
Where is the residue — where the remaining thir- 
teen thousand efficient men.' In the departments 
of the Northwest and of the Pacific. What condi- 
tion of things exists in thatsectionof the country, 
which requires there the immediate presence just 
now of this force of thirteen thousand men .' Can 
anybody answer.' Three thousand of those effi- 
cient soldiers of the Army of the United States 
are within tlie limits of the Territory of Kan- 
sas, or in its immediate vicinity. Does any- 
body know that there is any necessity at all for 
the continuance of that force in that Territory.' 
Two thousand troops have been thrown forward 
toward the Territory of Utah, in the direction of 
Salt Lake City, under command of ColonelJohn- 
ston, for the purpose of enforcing the law in that 
Territory; and the four additional regiments pro- 
viiled for in this bill were recommended by the 
President, solely upon the ground that there is 
threatened insurrection in Utah, and this force is 
necessary to suppress it. For that purpose alone 



^^^ 



does the President ask for this increase. The 
majority of the committee, of coiirsi", speak for 
themsL'lvis, and they say that this additional force 
is wanted for some otlier purposes. They want 
it not only for Utah, but to defend the emigrant 
trains, and the northwestern frontier. I deal with 
this matter, however, not as a measure which par- 
ticularly belongs to the majority of the Military 
Committee of this House, but as an Administra- 
tion measure. When it is proposed to increase 
the Army on the recommendation of the Execu- 
tive, I want to know the necessity for it; and to the 
President it belongs to show to the House and the 
country that necessity. That showing is the more 
needlul when the committee report no/rtc<.sin sup- 
port of their bill. How does the President show 
this necessity? What does he say about it.' In 
his annual message, he uses this language when 
speaking of the insurrection in Utah: 

'• Govornor VoiiiigJias. by proclatiiatioii, declared his de- 
tmiiiiiatioii to iiiainVh his power hy force, and has already 
coiiimillcd acts of hostility against the United States. Un- 
less he should retrace his steps, the Territory of Utah will 
he in a slate of open rebellion." 

What those acts of hostility are, the President 
has not been careful to tell us. The President 
furtiier says: 

" .A. great part of all this may be idle boasting ; but yet no 
wise Government will lightly estimate the eflbrts which may 
he inspired by such frenzied fanaticism as exists among the 
Mormons in Utah. 'J'his is the first rebellion which has 
existed in ourTerritories ; and humanity itself requires that 
we should put it down in such a manner that it shall be the 
last. To iride with it would be to encourage il and to render 
it formidable. ■-■ 

There is no rebellion in Utah, according to tliat 
passage of the message first cited. The President, 
however, says, in the last passage cited, " this is 
the first rebellion which has existed in ourTerri- 
tories." I do not intend to impeach the veracity 
of the President at large; but, sir, when he is the 
sole witness upon the stand to satisfy the House 
of the necessity of this increase of the Army, I 
will apply to him strictly the rule of the law of 
evidence, that when he is false in one material 
matter in issue, he is to be treated as false in all; 
and 1 shall so hold, wlnuher his falsity arises from 
corrupt motives, or from a simple want of the 
necessary information to enable him to tell the 
truth. Tlie President says further, in relation to 
this increase of the Army to suppress the alleged 
insurrection in Utah: 

" We ouslii to go tlii're with such an imposing force as to 
convinci- tlifsc: deluded people that resistance would be 
vain, aiul lliu< spare the elfusion of blood. We can in this 
manner best convince them that we arc their friends, not 
llieir cni-mii's. In order to aceoniplish this object it will be 
necessary, a><-ording to the eslimale of \\w VVar Depart- 
ment, to raise four additional regiments ; and this 1 earnestly 
reeomiiiend to t'ongress." 

For what object? To subdue these Mormons 
that thrtalin reljeUion. I have already read from 
the message the words of the President that, 
•' unless he (Young) siiould retrace his steps, the 
Territory of Utah will be in a state of open re- 
Ijellion." These words clearly import that some- 
thing remains yet to Ijc cl(>n<' before rebellion shall 
take place; that Young must pursue his course, 
must advance, or there will be no rebellion in 
Utah. '• Unless lie re/ioce his stops the Territory 
of Utuh will be in u state of open rebellion.'' 



Now, he says, in order to " put down this re- 
bellion," in order to enforce the law, it will be 
necessary, according to the estimate of the War 
Department, to raise four additional regiments; 
and this he earnestly recommends to Congress. 
It would have been yery satisfactory to me, Mr. 
Speaker, as I doubt not it would have been to 
every geatlcman on this floor, now that we are re- 
quired to vote on this bill, if the President had 
advised us whether or not the people of Utah, as 
a people, have done any act that would justify us 
in committing against them, as the President pro- 
poses to do, an act of war? 

Disguise it as you may, the proposition under- 
lying this whole proj(>ct — this recommendation of 
the President, this bill of the majority — is a prop- 
osition to wage war upon the people within tlie 
valley of Salt Lake. Now, I am just as ready as 
any other gentleman on this floor, when the proper 
occasion arises, to vote the necessary sujiplies of 
men and money to suppress rebellion in Utah, 
or anywhere else within the limits of the United 
States; but I must demand, on my oath and my 
conscience, before I vote any such supplies, the 
evidence of their necessity. And I but echo the 
voice of the civilized world, when I say that no 
nation should wage war, either foreign or domes- 
tic, but upon absolute, stern, inevitable necessity. 
It is the teaching of one of the greatest of all ju- 
rists, "that war is one of the highest trials of 
right." Sir, a right must be involved before this 
highest trial can be justly invoked. What right 
is involved here ? The right, I suppose, of killing 
indiscriminately the men, women, and children, 
of Salt Lake City. I have no other information 
than that which appearsin the message. It strikes 
me that the chief ground of all this quarrel, the 
chief ground of this atteinpt to be made with your 
Army and four additional regiments to subdue 
the people of Utah, is their having established in 
their midst the institution of polygamy — an insti- 
tution abhorrent to the whole civilized world, a 
shame and burning di.sgrace to the peojile of the 
United States. I am^jjyJJing — and, 1 trust, as de- 
sirous as any one can be — that this institution of 
polygamy in our mid.st Shall be abolished. Every 
good citizen of the UnUed States must feel a sense 
of shame that such -fJii institution has been per- 
mitted — nay, fostered — under the protection and 
sanction, if you please, of the Government of the 
United States. 

But, I would ask, was not this Brigham Young 
appointed Governor of that Territory and super- 
intendent of Indian aflairs by the late Democratic 
President, (Pierce,) when Young was the chief 
and head, as he still is, of the insiitution of 
])olygamy ? Young i.*? no more a polygamist to- 
day tluia he was the day he received his commis- 
sion. The only real ground of complaint that 
appears against him, so far as I know, is that he 
refuses, for the time being, to surrender the power 
thus voluntarily conferred upon him by the Gov- 
ernment. The reason of this refusal, as made 
known here by their petition, is that your Army 
now invading their Territory threatens their de- 
struction. I do not know that, even if they have 
violated, as I admit they have, the laws of mo- 
rality and decency in establishing such an insti- 



tution, that puts them entirely outside of the pale 
of humanity, or subjects their women or children, 
who have had, perhaps, as little hand in the mat- 
ter as the President of the United States himself, 
to massacre. 

I do not see any necessity for it There is an 
easy way for suppressing polygamy in the Ter- 
ritory of Utah. That is for the Government of 
the United States, through Congress, to resume 
and exercise its rightful authority over that Ter- 
ritory. I need not be told here that it would be 
unconstitutional to legislate against polygamy in 
Utah. Why would it be unconstitutional? Be- 
cause the Constitution is entirely silent on that 
subject ? You may make all needful rules and 
regulations for the government of that Territory. 
You propose now to make one alleged needful 
rule and regulation for its government, and that 
is, to organize four additional regiments for the 
purpose of holding it under military rule. The 
Constitution of the United States is, I admit, si- 
lent as to the crime of polygamy; but it is equally 
silent as to the crime of murder, or the crime of 
robbery, and yet you have spread upon your 
statute-books laws prohibiting the crime of mur- 
der anywhere within the Territories of the Uni- 
ted States, or within tlfe exclusive jurisdiction of 
the United States, and punishing it with death; 
and you have also United States laws prohibiting 
the crime of robbery within the Territories or ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of the United States, and pun- 
ishing it by line and imprisonment. It is equally 
•onstitutional to enact that polygamy, committed 
anywhere within the Territories orexclusivejuris- 
diction of the United States, shall be held a crime, 
and that, on due conviction thereof, the party 
committing it shall be punished with appropriate 
penalties. I believe there is not a State within 
the Union in which polygamy is not made a crime 
by statute, and punished as such. 

Why should not this offense be at once pro- 
hibited by law within the Territory of Utah be- 
fore we make it the pretext for exterminating that 
people by the sword ? I think it does not become 
the American Congress to imitate the pernicious 
example of Caligula in punishing as offenses 
against the law, acts done before the law was 
passed, or before the subject had the opportunity 
of knowing what the law was. 

I will say further touching this controversy with 
Utah, that the people of that Territory were lit- 
erally told by the law of 1854 — told by the Dem- 
ocratic press from Maine to California — told by 
the official communications of the Democratic 
Chief iVIagistrate of the United States, that they, 
in common with the people of every United Slates 
Territory, were perfectly free to establish their 
domestic institutions in their own way, and what- 
ever domestic institutions- they chose, even that 
of polygamy. They were further told, sir, that 
they would be protected in their domestic institu- 
tions whatever they might be, by the Army and 
Navy, if need be, of the United States. That 
was the real position assumed heretofore in regard 
to this question. In this loathsome institution of 
polygamy you may see one of the legitimate re- 
sults of that demagogue cry of " squatter sover- 
eignty" or the right of the first fifty or five hun- 



dred adventurers in any Territory of the United 

States to set up any domestic institutions not 
expressly in conflict with the Constitution of the 
United States. Young has literally acted upon 
your suggestions, and now you propose to destroy 
him and all his people for doing precisely what 
you said he might do. 

I would, then, in this emergency, as the case 
now stands, say this: that so far as that great of- 
fense has anything to do in this matter, let us 
reach it by statute; at least let us start in the right 
direction, by prohibiting it in the future. Let us 
do that, and then let us go a step further. Let 
us first try in the language of the law of nations — 
that law which ought to govern our municipal 
regulations, and apply to the domestic wars as 
well as to national wars — let us try all peace- 
ful means. To suppress polygamy we are asked 
to resort to the sword. Have their people other- 
wise offended ? We have before us the memo- 
rial of the Legislative Assembly of that Territory, 
in which they say they are ready to receive any 
civil officers that may be appointed by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, recognizing the au- 
thority of the Government of the United States, 
and praying that the Government of the United 
States will not subject them to the ravage and de- 
struction attendantupon an invadingarmy. Why 
not try the experiment of first sending out civil 
officers to Utah before you send your Army? 
Send your Governor and send your chief justice, 
without any military parade, into the Territory, 
and see if the people there will not peaceably re- 
ceive them and recognize their authority. If they 
do, then these four additional regiments are un- 
necessary. 

But suppose they are unwilling to listen to the 
voice of reason, or, as the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Boyce] the other day well said, 
they have become blind to their own interest, and 
willing to provoke an extermination by the sword; 
suppose that to be the actual condition of things, 
of which I protest I am not advised, nor is any 
gentleman in this House so advised: still I aver 
there is already a sufficient force of the Army of 
the United States in Kansas, which is not needed 
there, to supply the required four regiments; and 
which, in conjunction with the force now under 
Colonel Johnston in Utah, would be sufficient to 
exterminate all the Mormons in the Utah valley. 

Mr. Speaker, if I were alone in this opinion, al- 
though it would suffice for myself, I would not 
impose it upon any man with a view to affect his 
vote upon this bill. But, sir, the sufficiency of 
this Kansas force is not my opinion alone. The 
late Secretary of War, now a distinguished Sen- 
ator from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis,] a man as 
distinguished in the field as in the Cabinet, has 
recently spoken to the country upon this ques- 
tion. I think that gentleman fully competent to 
judge upon this point. He has recently made 
this distinct announcement: " that the force under 
the command of Colonel Johnston was, in his 
judgment, sufficient to put down all resistance in 
that Territory if theycould reach Salt Lake City." 
He says funher: " if Colonel Johnston has the 
transportation which will enable him to move, he 
will subdue resistance with the force he has." 



£!•?.' 



6 



Colonel Johnston's force is now two thousand 
men. An nddiiinnal forcf of two thousand or 
twenty-five Imiidii'ii mi-n would cnal)lf! liim to 
niovf. Tluii IS ilu> opinion ofilif late Secretary 
ot'War. Thi- Prcside;iit only asks for four addi- 
tional rcjrimi'Mts, or nliout three thousand men. 
Thi're istliat fiircforthr'-c tliousand miM),ormore, 
in Kansas and its vicinity. 'I'iu; President may 
supply the fi)ur rejriments from that force now 
wrongfully ki'fU in Kansas. Thisisclear. Where, 
then, I bej: leave to ask, is the necessity for these 
additional four reeiments of seven hundred and 
forty men each .' There is no necessity for it, un- 
less you deem it necessary to keep the four regi- 
ments of the reo;ular Army in Kansas perpetually, 
to enslave, in the future as in the past, lier free 
citizens. 

The argument "of the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Curtis] proceeded upon the hypothesis that 
thePresidenioftheUnitcd States isalready armed 
with sufficient authority, under existing statutes 
of the Unii.'d States, to employ the Army of the ; 
United Stales in the supjiression of insurrection 
or resistance to the laws in Utah. The argument 
of the gentleman frotn Mississippi [Mr. Quit- 
man] proceeded upon the same hypothesis. I 
think those gemlemen were right in their assurnp- 
tion, and th:it my colleague [Mr. Stanton] was ' 
wrong in suggesting that the law which gave the | 
President that power was unconstitutional or in- 
operative. I believe the statute of 1807 is valid ; 
and in full force, authorized by the Constitution ' 
of the United States, and in accordance with the ' 
plain letter ofthai instrum.'iit. The Constitution 
authorizes Congress to raise an army, and to 
provide all necessary rules and regulations for 
lis government,~and to provide for the common | 
defense. That is a plain and express grant of: 
powerto Congress. Where words are plain, there , 
18 an end to all construction. The act of 1807, 
which authorizes the President to employ the 
Army to suppress obstruction or resistance to the 
laws of a Territory, is valid. He may, therefore, ' 
draw from Kans'as three thousand men, if needed i 
to reinforce Colonel .Johnston, and enable him to 
move and subdue all resistance in Utah. These I 
three thousand men are now subject to that ser- [ 
vice, and useless where they are; I miglitsay they ' 
are olTensive where they are, but by reason of no 
fault of theirs 

Let Governor Cumming, then, take care, at 
the proper time, to make requisition on the Pres- 
ident for the troops, and that is all that is wanting ' 
to give the Priwident full autliorily to act during I 
ihevHcatinn. This bill, of cour.sc, is not intended 
to go into operation until after the close of the ses- 
sion. There in, therefore, nothing in the present j 
condition of thing.s in Utah, nor in the present 
regular force of ihe Army, to create a necessitii for ! 
the proposed increase of either volunteers or rcg- | 
ulars. At all events, Mr. Speaker, with the dis- i 
liiiguiHhed ex-Seereiary of War, [Mr. Davis,] I ' 
ray of the deluded people of Utah, " I want not 
their blood shed l)y the Government of tlie Uni- 
ted StaieH." Sir, I do not intend that the blood 
of that people, or any other people, shall be upon 
my hnnds, or upon the Army of my country, by 
any act or vote of mine, until the neceisily for it 



is not only apparent, but absolutely unavoida- 
ble. Let the Government of the United States act 
affirmatively. Tin- Government should not oc- 
cupy a mere negative position in this matter. Let 
us first try peaceable means for the settlement of 
this difficulty. Let us try negotiation. Letustry 
the organization of a civil government. Let us 
try to bring that people back to their allegiance, 
not by force of arms, but by civil, peaceful, quiet, 
and just means. When every peac(;ful measure 
has been faithfully tried, and has failed, then, and 
not till then, let us try the dread arbitrament of 
the sword. 

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the proclamation 
of Brigham Young and the resolutions of the Le- 
gislature of Utah to say distinctly that no officer 
shall be permitted to exercise power in that Ter- 
ritory, unless an officer of their own choosing. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I must say to the gentleman 
from Iowa that I understand the very converse of 
that. I have not had the 0|iportunily to read the 
petition of the Legislature of Utah, sent here and 
presented yesterday. I do not know that the gen- 
tleman has. I heard that petition read from tha 
Clerk's desk. I understand that it asks that the 
Government of the United States shall appoint 
good and Irxie men over them — not men who will 
abuse and libel and slander them. Be that as it 
may, so far as the proclamation of Brigham Young 
is concerned, I do not know how the gentleman 
knows anything officially concerning it beyond 
what the President knows and states; that is, that 
Young says he shnll maintain his power in Utah b^ 
force. It is not that he will maintain his power 
uiro7io/u//i/ against the United States by force, but 
merely that he will maintain his power by force; 
of course, against any power wrongfully brought 
against him or his people ! 

Mr. SAVAGE. Here are the concluding words 
of the proclamation of Brigham Young, to which 
I would direct the gentleman's attention: 

"Therefore, I, I!iii»)iaiii Yoinicr, Governor ;nul Superin- 
tendent ot" liulian Aftiiir.s tor llie Territory of Iftah, in tho 
name of the people of the United States in the Teiritorvof 
Utah, forbid, 

" First. All armed forces of every description from corn- 
ing into this 'J'erritory iiiulor any pretense whatever. 

" Second. That iili the forces in said 'J'erritory liold them- 
selves in readine.ss to inareli at a moment's notice to repel 
any and nil such invasion. 

"'I'hird. !\Iartial law is hereby declared to e.\ist in thi« 
Territory from and after the pnlilieation of this proelaina- 
tion ; and no per>()n shall he allowed to pass or repass into, 
or Ihrouyh. or from, this Territory without a permit from 
the proper officer." 

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not intend to waste 
much time on that document. I do not intend to 
enter into a special defense ofanylhing it contains. 
Suppose we treat it here as an authentic document 
emanating from this man who signs himself I]rig- 
ham Young, Governoi-and Superintendent of In- 
dian Affairs.' What does it amount to.' That 
he will resist any armrd invasion. He is out in 
the wilderness, three thousand miles from the 
capital of the country. He is advised that an 
armed invasion is being made into his Territory. 
H<; has no evidence that the United States Gov- 
(M'liment sanctions that invasion, or even knows 
anything of it. If Young is guilty of treason, first 
indict him for it, and try to arrest him and bring 



him to trial and judgrrtent by the ordinary process 
of the law. Until you at least try to do this, you 
have no right to make his treason the pretext for 
the indiscriminate murder of his people. 1 put it 
to the gallant gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Savage] whether upon a showing of this sort he 
is willing to send an army of invasion into that 
Territory not only for the purpose of destroying 
Brigham Young, but of putting wom.en and chil- 
dren to the sword? That is the point which is 
involved here. It is not whether Young has acted 
wrong in issuing a document of that sort; but is 
there any evidence of the neceasily of an increase 
of the Army, and the proposed invasion of that 
Territory ? I have searched fiu- that evidence, but 
I have searched in vain. I have challenged the 
production of that evidence from the other side, 
but 1 have challenged its production in vain; and 
until the evidence of that necessity clearly appears 
I shall not record my vote forthis measure of blood 
and murder, so help me God! 

One word more and I have done with this mat- 
ter. If it were perfectly apparent that the pro- 
posed increase of the Army of the United States 
was necessary, as provided in this bill, v/liile the 
bill authorized the President of the United States 
to control that force, I could not and would not 
vote it. I say that it is a humiliating confes- 
sion to make, but I make it because it is my felt 
conviction that the President of the United States 
has already proved himself wholly unfit for the 
trust;and to-day let me say that, in my judgment, 
the House would be more in the line of its duty to 
prefer articles of impeachment against the Presi- 
dent of the United States for high crimes and mis- 
demeanois than to vote for four or five additional 
regiments to be put under his control and author- 
ity. That necessitii, as I have shown, does not 
exist; but if it did I could not and would not vote 
for this bill because it allows the President to 
control the new force, and 1 believe him unworthy 
of that trust. 

I am not alone in this opinion, that the Presi- 
dent should not be intrusted with this additional 
force, or with any additional force. This measure 
has been before another body in the other end 
of the Capitol — a majority of whom profess to be 
of the party of the President — and yet, strange 
to say, that body has rejected both these propo- 
sitions of an increase of the Army, either by vol- 
unteers or by regulars. If his professed political 
friends refuse to intrust this additional power to 
the President, I think those of us who neverpro- 
fessed, much less ft-lt, over-confidencein the Pres- 
ident, may be pardoned if we hesitate and doubt 
his fitness or fidelity. iVIr. Speaker, 1 would not 
wantonly speak harshly of the President, but a 
sense of duty constrains me to say that, in my 



judgment, the President has proved himself unfit 
for the trust proposed to be confided to him by 
this bill. He has grossly abused and betrayed the 
power conferred upon liim by the existing statute 
which authorizes the employment of the Army 
for the suppression of oljatruetions to the laws of 
the United States, or of any Slate or Territory. 
Under color of that statute, sir, he has sent three 
thousand of your Army into Kansas and its im- 
mediate vicinity to coerce its fieemen into obe- 
dience to enactments wliirh they never framed or 
authorized, whicdi Ci)n<;r<'SS never sanctioned, 
and which have no sanciion but that of the usurp- 
ers and marauders who invaded and defiled that 
Territory. 

As a pretext for this act of oppression, foi this 
gross breach of trust, the President, in his specji 
message of the 2d of last month, says, th^pcver 
since the period of his inau^iu'ation " a lar Jj por- 
tion of the people of Kansas have been in ~ 
lion against the Government;" and that| 
" would have long since subverted the gOA 
ment established by Congress, had it not 
protected from their assaults by the troops oflthe 
United States — that they have constantly |re- 
nounced and defied the Government to which 
they owe allegiance, and have at all times been 
endeavoring to subvert it, and to estalilish a rev- 
olutionary govern ment under the so-called Topeka 
constitution." I aver, sii-, that this charge of the 
President against the people of Kansas, that they 
have been in rebellion asrainsl the teirilorial gov- 
ernment estahlislied by Congress, ever since the 4th 
of March, 1857, or at any time, is a calumny — 
that it is put forth by the President as a pretext 
for the military despotism which he has wrong- 
fully established over them, in violation of his 
duty, of their riglUs, and of the laws of the coun- 
try. Against the President's assertion that there 
is or has been rebellion in Kansas, I interpose, and 
hold up to the House and the country his solemn 
declaration in his anniml message, of the 8lh of 
last December, in which he says that the rebel- 
lion in Utah is " the first rebellion which has ex- 
isted in our Territories." 

Both of these assertions of the President can- 
not be true. If there has been reheilion in Kan- 
sas ever since the President's inauguration — if 
that people have been "all the time" since then in 
resistance to the laws and authority of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, it cannot be that the 
rebellion in Utah is i\n', first reheUicn which has 
existed in ourTerritoiir s. If thi^ statement con- 
cerning the rebellion in Utah be tiue, the charge 
of rebellion in Kansas i.s false; and is, therefore, 
what I aver it to be, a calumny upon that injured 
people, and a shameless pretext forthe President's 
invasion of their rights and betrayal of his duty. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



J 



11!: 

011 89tt <^'" 



lii...^ 



